Tests – · none yet Owners 49 · 12 reviews
Head-to-head
Updated
Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT vs Michelin Energy Saver — Compared
Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 0 + 1 road tests and 12 + 137 owner reviews. How we score
Energy Saver is ahead, 69–55
Add your size for an exact match
/R
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests 71 · 1 test Owners 69 · 137 reviews
Best test result: #2 of 20 in 2018 Auto Bild 15 inch Summer Tyre Test (wear)
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
53
Dry
Energy Saver +1669Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 RFT Energy Saver Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 58 (est.) 71 Reviews found online 45 68 Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 58.4 (est.) + 40% × 45.1 = 53
Energy Saver: 60% × 70.6 + 40% × 67.6 = 69
No road tests of dry for Turanza ER300 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
-
57
Wet
Energy Saver +1168Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 RFT Energy Saver Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 60 (est.) 69 Reviews found online 52 67 Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 60.2 (est.) + 40% × 51.6 = 57
Energy Saver: 60% × 69.1 + 40% × 66.7 = 68
No road tests of wet for Turanza ER300 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
55
Comfort
Energy Saver +1368Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 RFT Energy Saver Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 65 (est.) ≈ 69 (est.) Reviews found online 48 68 Turanza ER300 RFT: 40% × 65.3 (est.) + 60% × 48 = 55
Energy Saver: 40% × 68.9 (est.) + 60% × 67.8 = 68
No road tests of comfort for Turanza ER300 RFT or Energy Saver. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
–
Noise
No comparison70Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 RFT Energy Saver Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests – 72 Reviews found online – ≈ 67 (est.) Energy Saver: 60% × 72.2 + 40% × 66.6 (est.) = 70
No owner ratings of noise for Energy Saver. The owner half is the owners’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.
-
57
Treadwear
Energy Saver +1774Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 RFT Energy Saver Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 61 (est.) 74 Reviews found online 51 74 Turanza ER300 RFT: 60% × 60.8 (est.) + 40% × 50.9 = 57
Energy Saver: 60% × 74.4 + 40% × 74.1 = 74
No road tests of treadwear for Turanza ER300 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
-
52
Handling (owners)
Energy Saver +1264Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 RFT Energy Saver Reviews found online 52 64 -
–
Efficiency
No comparison75Why this score
Source Turanza ER300 RFT Energy Saver Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests – 75
Scores at a glance
| Category | Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT | Michelin Energy Saver |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 55 | 69 |
| Dry | 53 | 69 |
| Wet | 57 | 68 |
| Comfort | 55 | 68 |
| Noise | – | 70 |
| Treadwear | 57 | 74 |
| Handling (owners) | 52 | 64 |
| Efficiency | – | 75 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Weight the categories that matter to you
Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Not important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Recomputed
Headline score
55
/ 100
Turanza ER300 RFT
69
/ 100
Energy Saver
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A Turanza ER300 RFT
Pros
- Decent dry grip and acceptable comfort for a run-flat tire
- Impressive tread life and mileage reported by highway and long-distance drivers
- Reliable OEM fitment integration for compatible vehicles like BMW models
Cons
- Subpar or near-zero grip in wet conditions, frequently causing traction control activation
- Harsh and noisy ride quality typical of the run-flat construction
- Rapid tread wear reported by some drivers on mixed roads
Tire B Energy Saver
Pros
- Exceptional tread life and long-lasting durability
- Noticeable improvements in fuel economy and low rolling resistance
- Low road noise and high levels of driving comfort
Cons
- Subpar wet-weather grip and traction, especially as the tires age
- Prone to dry rotting, cracking, and hardening after a few years
- Poor performance and sliding in cold or winter conditions
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT | B · Michelin Energy Saver |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | — | 4 |
| Rim diameters | — | 15″ – 16″ |
Which one should you actually buy?
55
/ 100
Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT
69
/ 100
Michelin Energy Saver
Winner: Michelin Energy Saver — better treadwear, dry and comfort. It leads or ties in every category we score. Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 12 reviews), so read this result as provisional.
Pick tire B
You want the longest tread life
Michelin Energy Saver scores 74 vs 57 on treadwear.
Pick tire B
You want the most grip on dry roads
Michelin Energy Saver scores 69 vs 53 on dry.
Pick tire B
You want the most comfortable ride
Michelin Energy Saver scores 68 vs 55 on comfort.
Pick tire B
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
Michelin Energy Saver scores 64 vs 52 on handling.
Tire A · Bridgestone Turanza ER300 RFT
Tire B · Michelin Energy Saver
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Turanza ER300 RFT or Energy Saver?
Which is better in the wet, Turanza ER300 RFT or Energy Saver?
Michelin Energy Saver, 68 vs 57 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, Turanza ER300 RFT or Energy Saver?
Michelin Energy Saver, 69 vs 53 on our dry score.
Which is more comfortable, Turanza ER300 RFT or Energy Saver?
Michelin Energy Saver, 68 vs 55 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, Turanza ER300 RFT or Energy Saver?
Michelin Energy Saver, 74 vs 57 on our treadwear score.
How do we compare tires?
Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.
Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.
Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology